Latest Contributions by JayCary

Quick Update: The Valency check is now available in attribute rule-based validation in ArcGIS Pro 3.5 and ArcGIS Enterprise 11.5. The use of the Valency check for interactive data validation using the Run Data Check command is planned for ArcGIS Pro 3.6. ... View more

There are two supported implementation methods (Arcade and ArcGIS Data Reviewer) for validation attribute rules. You may want to review your server log to see which rule(s) are taking the most time to complete. Here is a link to a technical workshop that discusses using server log to identify rule performance. ... View more

Sharing with Attribute rules board for awareness since the observed behavior is the same when using Arcade or Data Reviewer-based validation attribute rules. ... View more

Sharing with Attribute rules board for awareness since the observed behavior is the same when using Arcade or Data Reviewer-based validation attribute rules. ... View more

@Remmertand others who find this idea, please see the following ArcGIS Pro idea requesting similar functionality (grouping is a form of sorting) and add your specific use-case and kudos to show your support: ArcGIS Pro Topology Error Inspector - Sort Headers Note: The Error Inspector supports error management for multiple workflows including Topology rules and Attribute rules (where Data Reviewer error features live). Enhancements to the Error Inspector are typically shared across these workflows. Thanks! ... View more

Hi, Thank you very much for your feedback. Unfortunately, the Reviewer Results pane (and other tools that support ArcMap-based workflows) are scheduled for deprecation in a future release. We recommend that users start transitioning their workflows from Reviewer batch jobs to Data Reviewer automated checks and visual QC tools in attribute rules. You can learn more about migrating to attribute rules in this help topic. ... View more

Hi, Just to confirm, this is the expected behavior when evaluating features using a validation attribute rule. The editor tracking info is updated whether the rule has been implemented using Arcade or a Data Reviewer check. Would it be possible to get more info (either here or in a PM) on how this behavior is impacting the "integrations" you mentioned in your post? Would like to share this with the development team for discussion. Thanks! ... View more

Just a quick note that this issue has been addressed in the upcoming ArcGIS Pro 3.5 and ArcGIS Enterprise 11.5 releases. The team is also planning to include this fix in future ArcGIS Pro and Enterprise patches. Thanks again for sharing your feedback! ... View more

Thanks-much for the clarification (and heads-up)! I was able to reproduce this behavior using ArcGIS Pro 3.4 and ArcGIS Enterprise 11.4 with error features created using the Composite check. The development team has logged an internal bug to address the issue. I would suggest starting a technical support case (and log a bug) if you'd like to track progress and be notified when the issue is addressed. Thanks again for the feedback! ... View more

Hi, It sounds like you have a mix of error features created using both Arcade and Data Reviewer. Data Reviewer-generated errors are managed differently than those created using Arcade. Here is a topic which outlines the lifecycle workflow for errors created using Data Reviewer's automated checks or visual QC tools. You can quickly identify this difference by adding the Phase and Status columns to the Error Inspector pane by enabling the Show Status option (found in the the menu button ). ... View more